Thus, by the end of the seventh TPC conference, members began to envision a tangible pathway: the widespread distribution of the Research and Policy Brief to legislators and health polic
Trang 1not provided them with any “ take - home ” products and information that they could
immediately use in their professional roles and that their time and energy were only
benefi ting the university scientists
Several months passed before a seventh TPC conference was convened The tone
at that fi nal meeting, in contrast to the sixth conference, was once again decidedly
positive and optimistic as members were invited to work together toward refi ning a
draft of the TPC Research and Policy Brief, which had been drafted by a subgroup of
TPC members between the sixth and seventh conferences 1 Also, a new TPC Grants
in - Aid Program was announced at the seventh conference, and community members
of the TPC were invited to apply for consulting funds to be used toward the
develop-ment and impledevelop-mentation of tobacco control programs initiated by their respective
organizations Thus, by the end of the seventh TPC conference, members began to
envision a tangible pathway: the widespread distribution of the Research and Policy
Brief to legislators and health policy organizations, through which their collaborative
efforts over the two - year project period would be translated into a specifi c tobacco
control strategy
Collaborative Outcomes
Con-sortium (TPC) was successful in accomplishing the major goals of the conCon-sortium as
outlined in the proposal to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation First, the TPC was
established and sustained over the two - year project period Approximately twenty - fi ve
community decision makers and fi ve TTURC scientists participated in each of the
seven TPC conferences The consortium was unique in its interdisciplinary,
interpro-fessional, and multisectoral composition with various sectors of the community
includ-ing educational and public health organizations represented Second, new research
fi ndings emerging from the UCI TTURC were collectively synthesized through TPC
discussions and activities designed to facilitate university - community dialogue and
collaboration Novel ideas — some readier for implementation than others — were
gen-erated to guide the translation of UCI TTURC research fi ndings into community
pro-grams that would benefi t adolescents residing in the Orange County region These
collaborative ideas were formulated into specifi c “ targets of translation, ” which was
the fourth goal of the consortium
In addition, the consortium identifi ed institutional/cultural facilitators and barriers
to implementing innovative TD approaches aimed at tobacco use prevention and
reduction among adolescents Specifi cally, participants were asked the following
ques-tions: (a) “ What are the most important barriers and facilitators to implementing
tobacco prevention programs and policies in your local schools and communities? ” (b)
“ In what ways do you think parents, teachers, students, and others can facilitate or
hin-der collaborative anti - tobacco efforts? ” Despite a wide range of responses, participants
overwhelmingly agreed that the most important barriers to implementation were (a)
competing educational priorities for schools; (b) limited resources, including money,
time, and staff; and (c) limited program evaluation research demonstrating the most
Trang 2202 Transdisciplinary Action Research on Teen Smoking Prevention
effective community strategies for preventing and reducing smoking Key facilitators
of effective collaboration and implementation of innovative policies and programs
included (a) highly committed volunteers and leaders; (b) scientifi c research providing
clear and empirically validated insights into the sources of teen smoking; (c) creative
partnerships among schools, public agencies, and community organizations for
stream-lining collaborative efforts; (d) peer - to - peer education about and involvement in
tobacco control strategies; and (e) the development of evidence - based and
demonstra-bly effective policies for preventing or reducing teen smoking
Participants also pointed out several ways in which parents and schools can infl u-ence the development and implementation of innovative tobacco control strategies
For instance, parents may hinder implementation because of their beliefs that tobacco
is no longer a pressing issue due to the gains made in California statewide tobacco
con-trol and that, therefore, their children are not at risk for tobacco use School districts
may hinder implementation of tobacco control programs in the classroom due to the
“ No Child Left Behind ” law, which has raised standards for each child to test well on
educational achievement tests and, thereby, has relegated health - related curricula to a
much lower priority than instruction in areas such as math, science, and English
Health education is often superfi cial and inadequate in K – 12 schools At the same
time, parents may foster implementation of smoking prevention programs owing to
their desire to raise healthy children and their support of schools ’ efforts to achieve
broader educational goals beyond the required standards for enhancing children ’ s
aca-demic development Schools, too, may foster implementation if they support the idea
of teaching children to be healthy and if administrators and school districts believe in
tobacco control
Over the course of their collaboration, TPC members identifi ed potential targets
of translation for community - based tobacco control strategies, especially those
build-ing on and incorporatbuild-ing the scientifi c fi ndbuild-ings from UCI TTURC studies of nicotine
addiction and tobacco use The four major targets of translation identifi ed by TPC
members for possible implementation in the community are outlined here
1 Via DVD or Web site, provide diagnostic assessment of vulnerabilities to
nicotine addiction and tobacco use based on an individual ’ s assets and resources Based on a decisional algorithm, assign appropriate treatment modules that match individual students ’ and their family ’ s needs Create versions for both parents and children
2 Develop a consensus statement such as a research and policy brief to inform
various groups (ad/marketing campaigns, schools, legislative bodies) about evidence - based tobacco control strategies Provide an avenue for youth involve-ment Publish the consensus statement in multiple print and electronic venues
3 Develop an anger management, hostility, and bullying reduction program based
on an existing exemplary program and evaluate its effectiveness for reducing tobacco use Offer schools monetary incentives for participation
Trang 34 Develop a three - pronged approach to (a) teach children the best practices of
emotion regulation, impulse control, and decision making; (b) monitor high - risk children and adolescents; and (c) collaborate with community centers that offer health, cooking, life skills, and physical activity programs to develop integrative and effective school health programs
As an elaboration of the second target of translation just noted, TPC members chose to develop and disseminate a Research and Policy Brief on Preventing Teen
Smoking UCI TTURC research was presented and synthesized, and specifi c directions
for tobacco control policy innovations were presented in the brief 1 Three thousand
briefs were distributed to local, state, and national policy and decision makers The
impact on future smoking prevention policies and programs has not yet been assessed
Finally, the consortium allocated grants - in - aid funding to support local profes-sionals and decision makers in their efforts to launch and sustain evidence - based
pro-grams for preventing and reducing teen smoking Community decision makers and
organizational leaders proposed and implemented a variety of programs supported by
the TPC Grants - in - Aid program that they felt would be most useful and effective for
their constituents One program was an education and discussion session series in
which counselors and at - risk adolescents discussed positive emotional outlets and
alternatives to risk - taking behaviors such as smoking Another initiative, the “ Dude,
Where Are My Lungs? ” program, devised a plan for high school students to mentor
younger students and work together to create an educational play incorporating the
fi ndings from UCI TTURC research Audience members, who would be the tobacco
control message recipients, included not only adolescents but also younger students
and family members In addition, a new adolescent smoking prevention research pilot
study and related affect management training program based on earlier UCI TTURC
research were funded and implemented
Falling Short of Achieving Full Potential Still, the consortium fell short of
achiev-ing its full potential Specifi cally, it did not become a self - sustained collaboration that
demonstrated reduced tobacco use among teens To date, consortium members have
not met yet again as a group The consortium did not demonstrate or achieve its implicit
longer term goal: to reduce tobacco use among adolescents in a sustained manner
Why did this not occur? The original goals of the consortium did not explicitly include
the long - term goal of sustaining the collaboration, and there were negligible funds,
time, and support to do so once the foundation - funded project period ended
Moreover, the multidisciplinary and professional diversity of team members meant that their individualized and dissimilar professional goals were not conducive to
sus-taining collaboration once the TPC project formally ended Community members,
understandably, did not commit to doing more to sustain the collaboration beyond
the two - year funding period Without a longer time frame, there was little opportunity to
translate research ideas into local community interventions Perhaps initial expectations
should have been set so that members would sustain the collaboration on their own,
Trang 4204 Transdisciplinary Action Research on Teen Smoking Prevention
and more time and funding should have been granted to allow members to continue
their multisectoral collaboration
To promote sustained collaboration, institutional incentives could have been sought for the consortium members Researchers could have sought administrative buy - in
through course releases and greater institutional recognition of the value of
interdisci-plinary collaboration in faculty promotion processes For community members,
mone-tary incentives for attending, the potential to be associated with other well - respected
people at a major university, and the possibility of gaining fi rsthand knowledge about
the latest research that might help them in their jobs may have prompted community
members to attend TPC conferences, but additional incentives were needed to sustain
longer term collaboration Community agencies could have found ways to release their
representatives to spend more time on the collaboration If these had been part of the
goals of the consortium, then perhaps it would have been more likely to survive after
the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funding was expended
Finally, the relatively short time frame of the collaboration (two years) made
it diffi cult for members to make a demonstrable impact on public health Years, not
months, may be required to realize the public health benefi ts of scientifi c research that
has been effectively disseminated and translated into improved community
interven-tions and outcomes, such as reducinterven-tions in population levels of adolescent smoking
Perhaps ten, twenty, or more years are needed to recognize the long - term impact on
public health 41 , 42 The consortium enabled members to begin the process of generating
novel ideas that could lead to long - term public health benefi ts over time, but tracking
such ideas and outcomes would require a signifi cantly longer period than two years
In some ways, the TPC project might be better characterized as a “ precollabora-tion ” rather than a fully funcprecollabora-tioning collaboraprecollabora-tion That is, it might be more accurate to
characterize the consortium as a group just getting started during the initial phase of
collaboration when planning begins but diffi cult decisions and confl ict have not arisen
The TPC was, after all, an informal group whose members did not have to sacrifi ce
much time, funds, or other resources to participate Members did not spend much time
making diffi cult decisions about whom the leaders would be, how funds would be spent,
and whose ideas were worthy of being implemented in the future TPC participants did
not face major concerns about whether individual members were being treated
respect-fully and fairly, whether individuals were meeting the expectations and norms of the
group, or whether they would be willing to devote more of their resources toward
con-tinuing the collaboration Their regular work outside the collaboration was not affected
particularly negatively or positively by their participation in the consortium Members
were not required to be accountable, by their employers or the consortium organizers,
to achieve positive outcomes Some time was spent at meetings focusing on creating
tobacco control ideas collaboratively in subgroups, but most of the collaborative ideas
were not translated into new policies and programs by the end of the collaboration
There was no requirement to actually implement the TPC members ’ ideas In fact, when
given an incentive and a quick deadline to submit a grant proposal for funds, members
chose to drop the more ambitious ideas they had originally generated in consortium
Trang 5subgroups Instead, they opted to propose programmatic ideas that would more quickly
and directly benefi t their unique constituents For example, instead of pursuing the
idea of spending weeks reviewing best practices for tobacco control in school settings,
a school principal in the TPC proposed a tobacco control plan that tied in with his/
her curriculum goals and that could be implemented immediately during the next
semester
IMPLICATIONS AND ADDITIONAL LESSONS
LEARNED FROM THE TPC STUDY
This case study of the UC Irvine Tobacco Policy Consortium (TPC) identifi es factors
that facilitated or hindered the collaborative efforts of university and community
part-ners working to reduce teen smoking Presented here are several “ lessons learned ” that
focus on improving future university - community collaborations and enhancing the “
sci-ence of team scisci-ence ” fi eld in general Suggestions for further study also are presented
Cycles of Emotional Storm and Calm Infl uence
Group Motivation and Performance
One lesson learned relates to identifying cyclical affective processes during
collabora-tion For example, the initial observations of the TPC collaboration were positive,
meaning that members rated their attitudes toward the TPC favorably, and informal
observations corroborated their positivity Some later observations, however, were
more negative, followed by attitudinal improvements later on, suggesting a cyclical
nature to the collaborative process Times of moving forward or backward for the TPC
included initial reports of optimism and enthusiasm at the beginning of the
collabora-tion, followed by frustration and skepticism at the conclusion of the sixth conference,
and fi nally, cycling back to a positive social climate and sense of achievement at the
end of the seventh conference emanating from certain tangible collaborative
achieve-ments — especially, the completion of the TPC ’ s Tobacco Policy Brief and distribution
of the TPC grants - in - aid for selected tobacco control projects As is evident from our
observations of the TPC, there are affective ups and downs that shape or color
collabora-tive processes Understanding personal as well as group motivations and
acknowledg-ing the importance of personal as well as group feelacknowledg-ings about specifi c shared goals
are essential for improving team collaborations during the transdisciplinary action
research cycle
Understanding Professional or Academic Jargon Requires Time
A second lesson pertains to the diffi culties of learning the lingua franca (professional
terminology) of co - collaborators who represent diverse disciplines and profes
si-onal fi elds The wide scope of the academic and professisi-onal backgrounds covering a
broad range of experience levels represented in the consortium made for a rich mix of
Trang 6206 Transdisciplinary Action Research on Teen Smoking Prevention
diverse knowledge and perspectives With such diversity, it was sometimes diffi cult to
fi nd a common language for understanding tobacco control research For example,
during a nicotine pharmacology research presentation, one TPC community member
observed that big “ agglutinated ” terms like psychopharmacogenetic were
intimidat-ing and off - puttintimidat-ing from a layperson ’ s perspective Over time, professional
terminol-ogy and academic disciplinary jargon may be gradually demystifi ed and defi ned The
extra time it takes to explain new terms may be warranted, however, to reduce the risk
of alienating fellow collaborators who feel lost in a sea of jargon Whereas the TPC
members each had time to inquire about terms they did not understand, team
collabo-rations must also consider the type and prevalence of jargon that is used throughout
collaborative discussions
Developing Realistic Expectations Helps
Achieve Intended Group Processes and Outcomes
A third lesson learned relates to choosing carefully the goals as well as the
admini-strative tasks requested of the collaborators Individuals entered the consortium with
certain assumptions about key collaborative goals and administrative tasks For
com-munity members, the assumed goals included developing new tobacco control
strate-gies, and the assumed tasks included meeting over a two - year period to contribute
their views about research priorities For the university members, the assumed goals
included developing an understanding of community partners ’ research priorities, and
the tasks included assessing community members ’ views about those priorities On the
surface, the consortium goals and administrative tasks were obvious and useful Upon
deeper analysis, some community members complained about feeling like a number in
a large research study when they were interviewed about their views or asked to
com-plete a variety of surveys during or after each conference Even though the surveys
were framed as being necessary for understanding collaboration between community
representatives and university researchers, completing surveys was considered an
activity that had less benefi t when compared to spending time on generating new
tobacco control programs or policies
Thus, it is important to establish realistic expectations early on about time com-mitment and how long various components of the collaboration will take to complete
in light of members ’ shared goals Addressing member expectations about the timeline
needed for achieving project outcomes is vital for success in any team science
collab-oration TPC members could have been warned, for instance, that part of their time
would be spent completing surveys and doing small group brainstorming Furthermore,
they could have been told that it might be diffi cult to create simple, low - cost tobacco
control programs, given the limited duration of the conference Such forewarning
may have resulted in fewer complaints about how much time was devoted to
adminis-trative activities and less disillusionment about reaching consensus on tobacco control
programs or policies
Trang 7Small - Group Activities Foster Shared Views and
Build Essential Social Capital
Another lesson learned relates to establishing a structured set of group activities
desi-gned for sharing viewpoints, both personal and professional, regarding the value of
var-ious tobacco control programs, policy, and research For example, time was allocated in
the TPC for interactive, small group discussions when members talked about ideas for
tobacco control strategies The discussions, coupled with the unstructured time during
meals, provided opportunities for sharing and explaining perspectives Uniformly, the
most valued activities were the ones that allowed for developing social capital and
establishing a common ground for discourse 43 Time to foster shared views was
neces-sary due to the differences between the professional goals of the community members
and the researchers During small group sessions, community members focused on
practical questions such as, “ How do we enroll more students in after school smoking
cessation programs? ” In contrast, university members often focused on research
ques-tions such as, “ How do we recruit more students to participate in our research study? ”
Furthermore, community members did not always appreciate the style of university
researchers feeling that they tended to “ pontifi cate ” while neglecting practical
commu-nity needs Despite their differences, all TPC members reported highly valuing and
appreciating the time and activities devoted to getting to know the viewpoints of fellow
consortium members One strong recommendation for fostering collaboration
emerg-ing from this case study is to emphasize small group interactions that encourage
dia-logue and allow ample time for all participants to express their views
In conclusion, the lessons learned from this case study of the TPC speak to identi-fying program structures for motivating collaboration when team members have very
diverse backgrounds and experience levels The science of team science should look
toward deepening the understanding of transdisciplinary scientifi c collaboration at all
phases of the transdisciplinary research cycle 2 , 44
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Antecedent Conditions That Warrant Further Study
Understanding antecedent conditions that exist before a transdisciplinary scientifi c
col-laboration begins must include not only identifying the disciplinary backgrounds of
team members but also acknowledging their beliefs and feelings about the project at the
outset For example, if team members participate by virtue of their technical skill, yet
they are otherwise uninterested in the project as a whole (e.g., they would rather be
working on their own project and resent the extra work posed by team activities),
ack-nowledging their feelings about the project becomes an important antecedent condition
This case study did not examine affective attitudes about the project before it began but
rather examined feelings about the project after it commenced Future studies should
explore the degree of motivational buy - in before large, expensive projects begin One
suggestion is to survey members of large teams after they drop out to determine the
Trang 8208 Transdisciplinary Action Research on Teen Smoking Prevention
reasons for their departure Whereas cyclical processes in team member motivation
(e.g., affective ups and downs) are expected in any transdisciplinary scientifi c
collabo-ration, identifying antecedent motivational factors is worthy of future study
Collaborative Processes That Should Be Further Investigated
In addition to antecedent conditions, several processes should be studied to enhance
the success of future TD scientifi c collaborations One process that should be studied
focuses on the transfer of knowledge from one discipline or professional background
to another For example, how does the basic vocabulary and theoretical perspectives
from the discipline of psychopharmacology get transferred to a youth guidance
coun-selor, and vice versa? What activities are most effective in promoting effective
exchan-ges of disciplinary information? Would completing a series of “ basic primers ” or
seminars serve as a test for prospective members ’ motivation to participate in a large
TD collaboration? And after completing some kind of “ continuing professional
educa-tion ” seminar or training module on TD collaboraeduca-tion, would prospective team
mem-bers still want to participate? Any type of collaboration readiness “ audit ” should assess
factors that facilitate or impede collaboration across disciplinary and professional
lines Such an audit should ensure that the collaboration has (a) clearly defi ned goals,
(b) goals that are perceived to be attainable, and (c) participants who are relatively united
across various community interests and agendas 45 – 47 Incentives for collaboration also
should be assessed because groups with individuals who have clear incentives to
collab-orate (e.g., grants funding, administrative support) may be more likely to do so 48
Another collaborative process worth exploring is the amount of time members perceive as necessary for completing the team project compared to the actual time
nec-essary For example, Buehler, Griffi n, and Ross 49 describe the “ planning fallacy ” in
which people routinely underestimate the time required for task completion Future
studies should explore the degree of underestimation in task completion that occurs
during transdisciplinary scientifi c collaborations
Collaborative Outcomes That Warrant Further Study
Of equivalent importance to the study of collaborative antecedents and processes is the
study of how transdisciplinary scientifi c outcomes are translated into health - promotive
community intervention and widely disseminated 50 For example, how were the
scien-tifi c outcomes of a large team project made available to lay audiences that included
community practitioners and local decision makers? What are the most effective
for-mats of translational presentations (e.g book chapter, journal article, lecture, executive
policy brief)? What is the longer term impact of the information after it has been
trans-lated and distributed widely to community groups? Which group (e.g., lay public to
expert) reports benefi ting most from the information?
Clearly, future studies of team science and transdisciplinary scientifi c collaboration must consider a wider range of collaborative antecedents, processes, and outcomes
than have been studied in earlier investigations Evaluation of the long - term impact of
collaboration on science, public health, and society also should be evaluated 44 Two years
Trang 9(the duration of the UCI TPC) is not suffi cient time for planning, implementing, and
tracking public health outcomes, such as a reduction in adolescent tobacco use in the
community Most collaborative teams funded by government agencies and private
foun-dations tend to last fi ve years or fewer, which typically is not enough time to see science
translated into positive outcomes in the community Through these future, longer term
research efforts, we will be better able to strengthen the science and practice of
transdis-ciplinary action research
Expanding the Field of Transdisciplinary Action Research
In general, transdisciplinary action research is underexplored and should be studied in its
own right 2 so that innovative scientifi c research is translated into policies and programs
that benefi t society To promote transdisciplinary scientifi c collaboration, university
community collaboration, and intersectoral partnerships, a number of broadly
concep-tualized future directions would be helpful
Continue Initiatives to Support Transdisciplinary Collaboration Greater attention
and funding will enable future research teams to conduct and study transdisciplinary
action research Already, an increasing number of researchers and agencies are
recog-nizing the need for more information in this rapidly expanding fi eld Although many
funding agents and university administrators acknowledge and verbally support
trans-disciplinary collaboration, some have taken concrete steps to establish initiatives that
fi nancially support transdisciplinary endeavors For example, at a national level, NIH
representatives should continue to support transdisciplinary scientifi c initiatives through
intra-agency collaboration, and efforts to translate research should be strengthened by
organizations such as Robert Wood Johnson and Keck Foundations, which have
launched large - scale initiatives to promote TD collaboration in science, training, and
the translation of knowledge into evidence - based practices and policies 26 , 27
As transdisciplinary action research (or the science of team science) grows, addi-tional efforts to evaluate the transdisciplinary collaborations are even more essential
Determining how to evaluate transdisciplinary scientifi c collaboration is diffi cult
Reliable and valid evaluative metrics need to be developed A greater understanding of
how to best track and evaluate ongoing collaboration is needed Only minimal empirical
work has tracked collaborative processes, generated hypotheses, and tested hypotheses,
which would then contribute knowledge that can be used to refi ne future collaborations
and health - promotive public policies
Increase the Knowledge Base The current knowledge base of information on
trans-disciplinary scientifi c collaborations, university - community collaborations, and
inter-sectoral partnerships needs to be augmented in several respects The relevant literature
can be described, for the most part, as nonexperimental and diffuse (i.e., scattered across
different fi elds and disciplines) Scholars working in multiple fi elds have published
papers on one aspect of the problem For example, librarians have discussed defi nitions
of disciplines, and physicists have provided retrospective memoirs of their experiences
Trang 10210 Transdisciplinary Action Research on Teen Smoking Prevention
in a collaboration using terms from their discipline, such as centripetal forces Although
fi elds such as organizational psychology and public health have discussed teamwork
and community - based participatory research, they haven ’ t been used widely to improve
TD science, training, and translation 15
Provide Effective Incentives to Increase Scientists ’ and Community Partners ’
Participation Greater incentives for researchers, community policymakers, and other
policymakers to participate in TD collaboration are needed Grant funding is helpful to
attract more people interested in TD collaboration, but additional incentives are needed
for community members and researchers Community members might need more time
off from their usual job responsibilities They need to problem solve how to achieve
mutually benefi cial goals of their organization while meeting the goals of the
collabo-ration For example, a principal fi gured out how to merge tobacco science research
results into her new program on physical health by creating a program in which the
heart is studied, and the tobacco research is discussed along with the heart University
researchers can determine how to share resources to help community members achieve
their goals — for example, arranging university student assistants to help them with their
needs or enabling them to speak in classes to bolster their r é sum é s and ties with the
university
Researchers could provide incentives such as course release time, reduced admin-istrative committee responsibilities, and perhaps a sabbatical from departmental
res-ponsibilities while they participate in labor - intensive collaborative projects They
might also be encouraged to join university - sponsored organized research units (ORUs)
rather than remaining spread across different departments Also, because researchers
must publish to be promoted, greater support for collaborative cross - disciplinary
pub-lications is needed Too often, journal editors are the “ gatekeepers ” who determine the
boundaries of their fi elds, and they are not suffi ciently receptive to cross - disciplinary
work In addition, collaborative, multiauthored publications are sometimes viewed by
university promotion committees as less important than single - authored publications
To foster transdisciplinarity, public funding agencies and private foundations should
follow the lead of the National Institutes of Health in recognizing multiple principal
investigators on the same collaborative project as a basis for distributing research
cre-dit more equitably among team members
principles of conducting TD action research They need to be exposed to multiple
disciplinary mentors and sensitized to the barriers and facilitators associated with
interdisciplinary collaboration Additional funding sources and institutional
mecha-nisms are needed to support such training Conferences and networks can also be
benefi cial for fostering knowledge about TD collaboration National conferences
such as those organized by funding agencies are also valuable in this regard For
example, in 2006, the National Cancer Institute organized a Science of Team Science
conference focused on transdisciplinarity 51